FCC says you can't get naked...DSL
posted March 26th 2005 7:35PM
The FCC's just decided that you can't get naked without paying a little extra, and we're not making some dumb joke about the Super Bowl, either. BellSouth won a big decision on Friday when the FCC voted 3 to 2 that federal telecommunications laws do not require telcos to offer standalone DSL service. Apparently they didn't like that state regulators in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and Louisiana had been forcing them to let subscribers sign up for DSL without signing up for a landline). Hey, the phone companies can do whatever they want (Qwest willingly offers naked DSL and Verizon says they're planning to do the same later this year), but there are plenty of people these days who just want broadband and a cellphone and don't see the need to pay an extra $20-$50 a month for a landline, so all BellSouth and the rest of the RBOCs are doing is giving us yet another reason to switch to cable Internet. Thanks, yo.
The issue is that cable companies are even more incompetent than the telcos. I had a cable modem for almost two years and the cable company made an upgrade; after that, my service was up less than 2/3 of the time, with a 12-day outage, a 9-day outage, and numerous 2-4 day outages. I finally dropped them and went with DSL. I'd *love* naked DSL, but given the complete and utter stupidity of my local cable company, I feel I have no choice.
(BTW, I blame most of the incompetence of cable companies on government regulators for approving local cable monopolies in the first place.)
I want naked broadband cable. I don't watch TV. What are the odds of getting that any time soon?
"I want naked broadband cable. I don't watch TV. What are the odds of getting that any time soon?"
I've never lived anywhere where I COULDN'T get standaloen cable modem service...
I have cable Internet service without cable TV. Time Warner doesn't require you to sign up for a cable package if you just want Internet service.
I didn't know it was even an issue with cable. I know Comcast has always offered standalone cable, usually 5-10 more than if you got it with tv service.
I can't believe how much my mom has to pay for her dsl in the little town of North Port, Florida. They only even made it available a couple of months ago, and she has to pay $50 to $60 a month (including landline), just to get the basic 1.5 mbps connection. It is absolutely ridiculus, and I would almost have her just switch to cable if it was available in the area. (Only DirecTV)
My cable company ( Insightbb.com ) offers naked broadband which is way better than my great DSL ( grics.net ) service the local telco offered. I would have never switched to cable with out the savings.
THANKS FCC = f%cking Consumers Constantly
here in vancouver canada you can get telus's ADSL naked, but they charge you if you dont have a land line 10$ more a month... or if you have a cell with them, then you can get it fully naked... too bad i just switched from them to another cell company... damn.
An interesting thing about my Naked DSL from Qwest. I'm still paying a "Federal Universal Service Fund Private Line" fee at 10%
On my first bill, it came to $8.01.
I guess, because my internet comes in over a line provided by the telephone company, I've got to pay into the FCC coffers that way?
"here in vancouver canada you can get telus's ADSL naked, but they charge you if you dont have a land line 10$ more a month..."
They told me they didn't offer naked DSL, so I just switched to cable. I just didn't want to be blackmailed into having a landline, or paying extra. With cellphones and VoIP popularity on the rise I think telcos will have to wake up to this reality soon or they'll be left with a lot fewer customers.
Same with me in Vancouver, none of the DSL providers will give me a connection without a landline (although I haven't tried for the past 6 months). Ascii, I'd be interested to know how you got yours.
What's worse with the local phone monopoly, the mandatory landline also means you get listed in the phonebook and on the internet, along with your address, unless you pay them a monthly protection fee, and every time you move or change anything, you have to pay them $45. What a racket!
Same S#@%t in Holland!
I certainly havnt seen a DSL service without a phone line here in the UK. and with the popularity of mobile phones thats starting to sound more rediculus.
cable is the other option of course, i could get that without a phone, but in my area the local authorities refused cable companies the permission to lay cables, so DSL is my only option
Irony: if you want an alarm system in the US, you order a "dry pair", i.e. a phone line that is connected to the CO but not hooked up to their equipment. The alarm company is co-located there and monitors on that wire pair.
There is no difference, other than cost, between this and 'naked' DSL, or even offering DSL with another provider sans voice.
Captain Obvious speaks: "The FCC is riddled with incompetency and naked bias, but you already knew that."
I have a "naked cable" broadband connection and a cell phone. I'm unplugged from the phone company and glad of it.
My provider, "WOW Internet and Cable" is great! It ain't cheap, but it's fast and reliable with excellent customer service. Only available in Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio.
http://www1.wowway.com/
The cable companies have an unprecedented market opportunity. They ought to start a major marketing campaign through their trade group urging customers to "unplug!" Personally, if I were Comcast I would buy T-Mobile. That the cable companies are allowing the Telcoms to buy up all the wireless capacity is really stupid.
I think this is a good ruling only in that it stops states from forcing companies to offer services. If Verizon and Qwest want to offer naked service then let them, if the market is demanding the service the bells will be shut out in the cold. Its not like the FCC is forcing us to buy DSL or even DSL with a land line, they only said that the states can't force a company to offer a particular service, if they don't want to. No problem here, go cable or go Verizon, either way the market has options.
Sean. You must not have read the posts above. Some areas don't have a choice.
Sean. You must not have read the posts above. Some areas don't have a choice.
The author of the article needs to read the actual decision. The FCC did not rule on naked DSL -- i.e., DSL alone on a pair of wires. It ruled on whether the phone company had to continue providing DSL on a phone line that a customer switches over to a competing carrier for voice service. Consistent with its previous decision not to require line sharing, it overruled state regulators' decisions that had effectively required line sharing by requiring the phone company to switch a customer's line to a competing carrier and continue providing DSL on that line. This has nothing to do with naked DSL. Read the decision at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-78A1.pdf
I agree with others that the cable companies especially Charter Communications are complete dunderheads when it comes to inernet "service". Apparently "service" means gaining a municiple monopoly and having the luxury to simply raise rates w/out any sort of hinderance. We the People should be allowed to have solitary access to high speed internet w/out having to pay and pay and pay for a decent speed and RELIABLE service. It should be regulated to OUR advantage.
Both Covad.com and Speakeasy.net offer "naked" DSL service:
http://covad.com/products/access/telesoho_dedicated/index.shtml
http://speakeasy.net/home/dsl/?service=techplus&type=onelink